In 2012, President Barack Obama's adopted hometown had 506 murders, including more than 60 children. Philadelphia, a city that local television newscasters frequently call 'Killadelphia," saw 331 killed last year. In Detroit, 386 people were murdered.

Of the 11,000 to 12,000 gun murders each year, more than half involve both black killers and black victims, mostly in urban areas and mostly gang-related. The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young black men is not auto accidents or accidental drowning, but homicide.

What happened?

Dads disappeared. Or, more precisely, to use Bill Cosby's term, the number of "unwed fathers" exploded.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." At the time, 25 percent of black children were born out of wedlock, a number Moynihan called alarming. Fast forward to the present, 72 percent of black children are now born out of wedlock. In fact, 36 percent of white children are born out of wedlock. Of Hispanic children, 53 percent are born outside of marriage.

In 1960, in South Los Angeles, “Tree Top”, the leader of the Slausons, was gunned down by the Comptons in a drive-by shooting murder. The Los Angeles Times did not run the story on its front page.

In 1971, in South Los Angeles, the brother of 1984 Olympic Gold Medalist Valerie Briscoe-Hooks was gunned down by street gang members (Crips? Bloods?) in a drive-by shooting murder. The Los Angeles Times did not run the story on its front page.

In 1987, in Westwood, an Asian girl was gunned down by street gang members (Crips? Bloods?) in a drive-by shooting murder. The Los Angeles Times ran the story on its front page.

Violence against young persons did not begin in Sandy Hook, Columbine, or Westwood. Perhaps White (and Asian) children must suffer before Western society takes notice of tragic violence which has festered in my neighborhoods all of my life. Perhaps now some will search for and address core causes, including fatherlessness, rather than continuing to mouth ideological platitudes.

Last edited by RockOnBrother on Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:36 am; edited 5 times in total

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are four major problems with this:

First of all is the first part of this amendment which MANY people simply ignore -- the part about a "well regulated militia." The only reason why this freedom was included in the original Bill of Rights was because Thomas Jefferson was completely against the idea of the USA having a standing army; he didn't believe in having professional soldiers, just "weekend warriors" who can bring their muskets down from over the fireplace whenever the nation needed them to. Note what Jefferson says (and yes, he personally authenticated this), "...necessary to the security of a free state." Jefferson expected the militia to serve as America's security, the first and last line of defense.

Of course, the gun-toting yahoos in this country have totally forgotten that a bunch of rednecks running around independently with weapons is not a "well-regulated militia." In fact, these dunderheads consistently advocate for NO regulation on guns, which is actually unconstitutional by the very text of the document they claim to be adhering to. I have often claimed that citizens do not have the right to bear arms if they are not in a militia, i.e. the National Guard. Yet not only are many of these clowns not in any sort of militia -- regulated or not -- they don't have any training at all.

This, in essence, brings me to the second issue, that being the refusal of many to understand the times in which the 2nd Amendment was written. To suggest that an amendment written in the late 18th Century applies just as well to the early 21st Century is patently ludicrous. The Founders were very careful to point out the need for a well-regulated militia for the nation's defense. This isn't the same thing as untrained, barely-regulated idiots buying guns by the dozen to a) shoot everyone that cuts through their lawn on the way to and from somewhere or b) overthrowing the government or c) committing crimes. The Founders cited a very specific reason for gun ownership, a reason that the gun-wackos ignore. I do not believe for a nanosecond that the Founders envisioned a paranoid, xenophobic, often bigoted and racist, overly religious culture running around with assault rifles shooting up 1st grade classrooms. How is that a well-regulated militia? I also don't believe the founders envisioned a population of gun owners without any reins ... a militia is a military organization with the same discipline and unit cohesion as any professional army. There are supposed to be commanders, a heirarchy, training, and discipline, none of which are provided by Wal-Mart when you purchase a high-powered 'thirty ought six' rifle over the counter.

Then, of course, is the religious angle. Gee, when isn't there a religious angle about something in this country? Far, far too many people believe that our rights were given to us by God. Because, you know, omnipotent beings are often distraut over the military quartering troops in private homes. At any rate, the irony of this belief is that the Bible -- the only source we have in regards to what God wants -- says not a peep about any of our Constitutional rights and, in fact, contradicts them in many cases. For instance, can we really say that God believes in the freedom of religion? I mean, seriously!! How about free speech? Nope, not when blasphemy is considered the only unforgivable sin. How about being free of cruel and unusual punishment? Nope, because getting stoned to death is pretty cruel and unusual. The abolishment of slavery? Nope, the Bible clearly condones owning other people as property. The Bible mentions nothing about the right to vote, the right to a trial, where troops can be quartered, how to elect a democratic government, or how many terms a president can have.

And God certainly never uttered a single word about the right to own guns.

Yet many in this country equate gun ownership to a right granted by God in the same way kings once considered their right to rule as a mandate from God. Therefore, there is a religious undertone to all of this as if the US Constitution is a lost book of the Bible. Of course, God isn't even mentioned in the US Constitution, something far too many Americans seem to be unaware of.

There are other problems, too, such as the well-financed and powerful lobbyist group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- an organization to which many congressmen belong. Recently, two congressmen who were for tighter gun control laws were ousted from their seats, replaced by pro-gun members of the NRA. These two congressmen were from Colorado, a state that has been especially hard hit by mass shootings from the Columbine shooting to the theater massacre in Aurora just last year. Yet, despite this, the NRA and the people of Colorado want less gun regulation, not more. I know many Americans believed that the Newtown shootings, where 20 little children were gunned down, would FINALLY wake America up ... but no.

Instead, they would rather blame video games and television shows than to even consider, hey, maybe it's the easy access to heavy firepower coupled with our miserable health care system where mentally unstable people cannot get the help they need (unless they have deep pockets).

And now we're faced with the Navy Yard shooting just nine months after Newtown. These shootings are a form of terrorism, make no mistake. The death toll from these shootings are often greater than that of car bombs and suicide bombers ... but because the perpetrators aren't Muslim, wear funny clothes, or speak a different language -- because the shooters are American -- it isn't labeled as terrorism. Yet dead is dead, whether from a Hezbollah rocket or a round fired by a wackjob with an automatic rifle, terrorism is terrorism. Funny how they're calling the Kenyan mall massacre an act of terror. Why not Newtown? Aurora? The Navy Yard?

Because that might incense the American people into finally pushing for a crackdown on guns, that's why. So while I see these mass shootings as domestic acts of terror, too many Americans see mass shootings as Americans practicing their 2nd Amendment rights.

Having said that, the psychological shock of an air attack in peace time is quite horrifying, and the whole country must be experiencing a form of PTSD following 9/11, perhaps cynically exploited by the Bush administation.

Using the spectre of an aggressor from outside is a lovely way to divert attention from human and civil rights abuses and neglect at home.

We managed to live with the IRA (which so many American pols supported) quite well. What's wrong with these gunmen?

Penderyn wrote:We managed to live with the IRA (which so many American pols supported) quite well.

Most Americans probably don't even know who the IRA is. It's not like people here are up on their world history, something I have to contend with daily, sadly enough. I would hardly accuse "so many" Americans of supporting or cheering for the IRA when "so many" are rather ignorant of anything that goes on outside of US borders. Those who bothered to take the poll most likely have strong feelings for the IRA while everyone else either didn't bother or chose randomly just to get the pollsters out of their faces or off the phone.

However, America does have a significant number of Irish immigrants, and many of them are here in the US due to the atrocity known as the Irish Potato Famine. I call it an atrocity because Britain had more than enough food to provide relief to the Irish, but the "robber barons" of the age decided to export the food to obtain higher profits. Naturally, there are going to be some bitter feelings left over from that event, and just because they cross a political border doesn't mean they forget the past or no longer consider themselves Irish.

oftenwrong wrote:We are possibly being somewhat hypocritical about criticising the US for its gun laws, which don't affect us in any practical sense, whilst also apparently expecting them to have accepted the indignity of 9/11 without making a fuss.

Remember how we invaded the Irish Republic as a result of the (American-backed) Provisional campaign?

The problem was the landowners who had the opportunity to flee to England leaving the poorer people to die in the potato famine - very simplified that was the version I remember from history lessons at any rate

A friend of mine who is a journalist in Washington DC once told me that in many American diners out in the sticks, no one bats an eyelid if a man walks in and puts a gun on the table, but if a man walked in and put a pack of cigarettes on the table - horror and disgust.

The gun lobby in the United States have well and truly lost the argument (and the plot), no one has to this day explained to me why a private citizen should need to own an automatic / semi automatic assault rifle.

The American attitude towards guns is something that most British or European people simply do not understand, and many Americans cannot understand why we over here dont want a gun owning society.

I guess we share a lot in common, they adopted our language, legal system and much of our culture, but some things divide us.

witchfinder wrote:-The American attitude towards guns is something that most British or European people simply do not understand, and many Americans cannot understand why we over here dont want a gun owning society.

I think you’re in danger of stereotyping Americans here. Gun ownership is a controversial issue in the USA, especially after a number of school massacres fairly recently.

A Gallup poll in October last year found that only 27% of US citizens personally own a gun and that 57% don’t have a gun anywhere on their property. 40% think easy access to guns is to blame for mass shootings, 56% supported a ban on assault weapons and 51% would limit magazine capacity to ten rounds or less. Another poll in January this year found that 55% are dissatisfied with the current state of gun laws.

Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has hamstrung the US government's ability to control and regulate guns. Not only is this an exceedingly powerful and well-funded lobbyist and special interest group, it does what conservative groups always does - preys on people's fears.

Thus no matter what the government proposes in terms of gun regulation, it's ALWAYS spun as the government coming after your guns. Oh no!

This is the very reason why America stands tall with North Korea and Iran as one of three nations that didn't sign the Arms Trade Treaty. The NRA managed to whip up the same old fear about how this treaty was essentially signing over our guns to the United Nations - and if any of those drooling morons had bothered to read the treaty, it specifically said that it did NOT have any jurisdiction or control over domestic gun laws. This treaty was about the sale of weapons internationally to drug cartels and terrorist organizations. Now who wouldn't want that? But the walking dead in this country, known as the gun nut conservatives, don't care about what the treaty says, only what the NRA tells them to be scared of.

I have always believed the right to bear arms in the US goes hand in hand with their many years of military conscription. With their obsessive fear of Communism, they not only had a population that are armed but many with the training as to how to use said arms, they think that when they get invaded and the Reds in their beds wake up, the multitude of fully trained and armed people will keep them safe from their inherent and unreasonable fear of Communism. Unfortunately America’s record of gun crime is the price they pay for such beliefs, along with the Volstead act it couldn’t be a worse thought out law/right.

Not helped of course by 100 years of Hollywood films depicting frontier-blazing heroes dependent on nothing but their own skills with a gun, total self-belief, and the certain knowledge that a Man's gotta do what a Man's gotta do.

Penderyn wrote:We managed to live with the IRA (which so many American pols supported) quite well.

Most Americans probably don't even know who the IRA is. It's not like people here are up on their world history, something I have to contend with daily, sadly enough. I would hardly accuse "so many" Americans of supporting or cheering for the IRA when "so many" are rather ignorant of anything that goes on outside of US borders. Those who bothered to take the poll most likely have strong feelings for the IRA while everyone else either didn't bother or chose randomly just to get the pollsters out of their faces or off the phone.

However, America does have a significant number of Irish immigrants, and many of them are here in the US due to the atrocity known as the Irish Potato Famine. I call it an atrocity because Britain had more than enough food to provide relief to the Irish, but the "robber barons" of the age decided to export the food to obtain higher profits. Naturally, there are going to be some bitter feelings left over from that event, and just because they cross a political border doesn't mean they forget the past or no longer consider themselves Irish.

You think a government of Manchester Liberals was going to impose socialism on the 'strong farmers' of Ireland who were making a packet throughout? In fact they did what they could within their pea-brained capitalist limits.

oftenwrong wrote:Not helped of course by 100 years of Hollywood films depicting frontier-blazing heroes dependent on nothing but their own skills with a gun, total self-belief, and the certain knowledge that a Man's gotta do what a Man's gotta do.

Allied with Capitalism, red in tooth and claw.

Apart from that, however, Americans can be charming people to meet.

Yes - isn't that the weirdest thing! Never met one I didn't like. Perhaps they only let good ones out!

oftenwrong wrote:Increasing numbers of ordinary citizens are slowly coming to the realisation that "The American Dream" is being reserved for supporters of the Republican Party.

When that reaches "tipping point" the true meaning of Gun Law will become very evident.

Oh, I truly think & feel that the "tipping point" arrived years ago but the NRA just placed many a subliminal {mind bending} messages into all of those early warning signs and social issues to spread the fear and that insane notion that 'have gun will travel' is the only way to protect you and your family!

Not that I'm often exposed to such ugly displays of public bravado, but when I am---my primary question & approach is; Hi, looks like you just left the practice range so how was the target shoots today'?', has your percentage improved from the first purchase date or have you just maintained the same average???Then depending upon the shock or adult responsible rejoinder --- it's an immediate qualifier for how responsible that OPEN CARRY HUMAN IS! Sadly' more often than not {he/she} will bull up in belligerent instant aggressive attitude and get defensive; 'I'm used to my hand gun and I don't need to waste money on target shots {often said with a sneer & smirk}___I know what I'm doing, you don't need to be afraid of anyone hurting you when I'm around' And as I'm slowly retreating away from #1stupid 'red-neck'...explaining that: 'thanks but NO TY...I don't trust anyone that assumes they do not need constant practice & proper weapon experience---chances are skewed against you and YOU WILL HAVE A HORRID ACCIDENT AND I DON'T CARE TO BE YOUR NEXT VICTIM I own s small 9mm hand gun and a 22 rifle: both are kept in a gun safe - kept clean and if not weekly, I go out and practice 3-4 times a month and have since I was 10 years old. My father and grand father were avid 'put meat on the table' type of hunters and all my 13 aunts & uncles and my 5 siblings were taught the importance of responsible gun ownership. But sadly, that is greatly overlooked in today's society

Aspca4ever

Posts : 42Join date : 2016-03-18Location : lost in the land of OZ-KANSAS that is

I fired a gun once - as a 14 year old trying to impress my friend's older brother. I found the experience terrifying and never want to repeat it. Anyone carrying any kind of firearm scares me because I just don't understand why anyone would - it's just a machine for hurting others - why would a rational person want one?

But the homes that we allow our child to stay and visit...far too many incidents of cousins/grandparents/neighborhood buddies that had irresponsible weapons in those homes that have wounded/killed the child that we cared so greatly to teach avoidance and proper handling of all weapons.

I have 3 friends that had just such events happen to their own child; two were killed by cousins and one was shot by a neighbor buddy but lived to tell about it...now that's some scar to tell about at 'show & tell' at school. My biggest issue is the need for LIABILITY INSURANCE, as a mandatory policy rider for anyone owning any type of fire arm, in the home!

Aspca4ever

Posts : 42Join date : 2016-03-18Location : lost in the land of OZ-KANSAS that is

boatlady wrote:Liability insurance is all very well - but might it not be better not to have things like guns in the home in the first place - if it isn't there, it can't hurt anyone.

I'm aware my views on this may seem simplistic but I really don't understand why anyone would want a gun

Statistics prove that you {and I} feel and think the same thing; but unfortunately the majority of Americans that live under that false premise that the 2nd Amendment is written specifically for their military type/and stocking piling of weapons/as well as the right to parade around daily with every weapon they own strapped to their bodies >>>

The CartoonsThe Reality

It's not that bad {yet} here in KS...but the CCW is allowing any nut job the right to own/have one {once you passed the waiting period for the purchase} unless you buy from a "TENT - GUN SHOW" then it's just a walk in the park to obtain a weapon of your choice sans any back ground paper work actually being processed.

Aspca4ever

Posts : 42Join date : 2016-03-18Location : lost in the land of OZ-KANSAS that is